Are Gospels Anonymous

 

Are Gospels Anonymous?

The Gospels are the main documents from which we get information about Christianity. The historical reliability of the Gospels is essential to Christianity. If the historical accounts of Jesus' life written in gospels are unreliable accounts, it would be difficult to believe that Christianity is true. A key question in asserting the historical reliability of the Gospels is who wrote them. Were they written by people who were likely to know about the things written? Or were they written by unknown people?

Christians believe that the four canonical gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who were apostles of Jesus or were closely associated with them. However, some critics suggest that the Gospels are actually the result of legendary traditions.

Their arguments are as follows:

First, all four gospels were originally published without titles and without mentioning who the author was. In other words, the Gospels were first composed without any “…written Gospel”.

Second, not only were these Gospels published anonymously, but they circulated anonymously for a century before anyone thought to put titles on them.

Third, it was only long after the disciples had died that the early church added titles to the Gospel manuscripts to give them "much-needed authenticity."

Fourth, because the Gospels are anonymous, none of them were written by eyewitnesses.

"The Gospels ... were written anonymously. The apostles and friends of the apostles wrote them only after someone made them up."

—Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (2011), pp. 101‐02. (future description)

"No one knows who the four evangelists were, but they certainly never met Jesus in person."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006)

If the anonymous gospel theory is true it is difficult to believe that the gospels are historically reliable. Let's examine 4 strong reasons to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four Gospels.

Reason 1: No one has found any anonymous copies of the four gospels

Papyrus 66, The first page of the papyrus, showing John 1

To hear many New Testament scholars say that all the early Gospel manuscripts were unknown. There are certainly incomplete manuscripts that do not have a title, but that is usually because the beginning of the Gospel, where the title is located, is lost in those manuscripts. For example, the second-century manuscript P52 contains only a few short verses from John 18, so it has no title. But in all the manuscripts we have of the first part, there are headings. Although the headings differ slightly, the names in all are the same: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Yes, this is the biggest problem with the theory that the gospels are unknown: No 'unknown' copies of these four Gospels have yet been found. There is no such thing. There is no historical evidence that the first manuscripts did not have headings. Instead, as the New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole has shown, the ancient manuscripts we have all have their names as titles.

Simon J. Gathercole, “The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (2013): 33–76. (Image of table from Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus)

Reason 2: If the doctrine of the unknown gospel is true, it must be a miracle

According to critics, the Gospels circulated anonymously in the Roman Empire for a hundred years. Suddenly, after hundreds of copies circulated, someone decided to give us the four titles we know today. Somehow they managed to change all the unknown gospels into the four recognized names, telling everyone that these manuscripts were to be used in the places we have them today: Syria, Africa, France, Rome, Greece, and Turkey. What a great story. It would be a miracle if these four names were written in the same way in all the manuscripts of the country after a century or two, as the critics say. From the beginning Matthew, Mark, Luke,

Reason 3: Why Mark and Luke to give credibility?

If the titles were added to give authenticity to the Gospels, what is the point of saying that two of them were not written by eyewitnesses? As far as we know, Mark did not witness Jesus' ministry. was not an apostle. He was a relative of Barnabas and a fellow traveler of Peter and Paul. Likewise, Luke was a Gentile traveling companion of Paul and was not an eyewitness of Jesus' earthly ministry. If the church wanted to "authenticate" these texts, it would not be necessary to say that these two gospels were written by Mark and Luke. Was it enough for the early church to give the gospels the names of Peter, James, Paul or Andrew? In fact, all later false gospels did so. All of them witnessed their works, Thomas, Peter, Judas, Claimed to have been written by Mary Magdalene et al. These names were an attempt to give the books more authenticity. But that is not the case with the four canonical gospels. In short, if Mark and Luke were not the real authors of the Gospels, the early church had no motivation to say that they wrote them. They must be the ones who actually wrote them.

Reason 4: Consistency of Early Christian Testimonies

Tertullian of Carthage (TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE

(CA. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2):

Tertullian, known in ecclesiastical history as the father of Latin theology, who wrote extensively in defense of Christianity against persecution from without and heresy from within, testifies:

“Let me state at the outset that the Gospel records have the apostles as their authors, and that the Lord himself imposed upon them this task of spreading the Gospel. . . . In short, from the apostles, John and Matthew instill the faith in us, while from apostolic figures Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”

Clement of Alexandria

CA. 150–215; ADUMBRATIONES IN EPISTOLAS CANONICAS ON 1 PETER 5:13):

Clement of Alexandria, a disciple and philosopher of early Christian leaders known to Jesus' apostles, wrote:

"When Peter was publicly preaching the gospel in Rome and giving many testimonies about Christ, in the presence of some of Caesar's soldiers, Mark , a follower of Peter , demanded that he give them a record of the things that had been said. As Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and was recognized as the translator of Paul's letter to the Hebrews, it is from what Peter said that the Gospel of Mark is called. The gospel was written.”

Irenaeus of Lyons

(CA. 130–200; AGAINST HERESIES 3.1.1–2; CF. EUSEBIUS, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 5.8.1–4):

Irenaeus was a bishop in France and a student of Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John. (Against Heresies, 3.3.3)

He wrote:

“Therefore, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and establishing the church in Rome, Matthew brought a written gospel among the Jews in their own style. But after their death, Peter's disciple and scribe, Mark , handed down to us in writing what Peter had proclaimed. Luke , a follower of Paul , presented the gospel he preached in a book. Later, John , the disciple of the Lord and who leaned on his bosom, while he was living in Ephesus in Asia, also issued a gospel.”

It will be understood that the testimony of Irenaeus of Lyons related to the eyewitness and Gospel writer John is of great importance.

Papias of Hierapolis

(CA. 125 AD, RECORDED IN EUSEBIUS 3.39)

Our earliest and most directly related testimony of the apostles is that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John:

"Therefore Matthew wrote the sayings in Hebrew, and each interpreted according to his ability."

" Mark , who became Peter's interpreter , wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of what Christ had said or done. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but without intending to give an orderly account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark was not mistaken in writing some things from his memory. For he was careful not to omit anything of the things he heard, nor to falsify any of them.”

Early Christian leaders alike testify that Matthew, Mark, and John wrote these four gospels. This evidence is strengthened by the fact that there is no other testimony to contradict these testimonies in the early church, and the fact that these testimonies come from the four corners of the Roman Empire as a result of the rapid spread of Christianity.

Conclusion:

The anonymous gospel theory advanced by critics of Christianity is a colossal failure when compared to the evidence. If the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples Matthew, John, Peter's companion Mark, and Paul's companion Luke, as all our evidence points to, then they are authentic. This alone proves unequivocally that they are historically true, and it is clear that they were written by people who were likely to know what the truth was. This evidence debunks the myth that the Gospels were written centuries later by someone unrelated to the events.

Watch this video for more details - https://youtu.be/C7s22DR9gaI?si=-K_tAOruvUwhwZyY (Inspiring Philosophy)

Further reading:

Pitre, BJ, & Barron, R. (2016). The case for Jesus : The biblical and historical evidence for Christ.